Sidepodcast

The Stewarding Process, Now With Added Drivers

Credit: Williams F1

Alain Prost and Damon Hill, pose with a sponsor at Kyalami, '93. The FIA is putting it's trust in these men.

For the 2010 season, the FIA are introducing an F1 driver to each stewarding panel, in an attempt to make their judgements fairer, and to provide a little insight into what was happening during each incident. We've previously discussed this idea at great lengths, pondering whether it's right to allow drivers in. Their added experience can only be useful, but might they be a little impartial to their former teams? It's an unknown at the moment, but what we do know is who will be taking those positions for the next few races.

Alain Prost

Prost is at the helm in Bahrain this weekend, taking the reigns as the first former driver to participate in the stewarding process under this new ruling. The Frenchman was last seen driving in the sport in 1993 for Williams. He's also driven for McLaren, Renault and Ferrari - and had a held a bitter rivalry with Ayrton Senna along the way. Prost has four world championships under his belt.

Prost went on to start his own F1 team which lasted just five seasons.

Heinz-Harald Frentzen

Frentzen hails from Germany, and was last behind the wheel of an F1 car in 2003. He's since been competing in DTM. He's driven with Sauber, Williams, Jordan and Arrows, but never managed to grab that elusive championship. He won three Grands Prix, though, the last being in 1999. He was disqualified only once during his F1 career - for leaving the pit lane under a red light.

Alex Wurz

Wurz has never been far from our consciousness, last seen racing in China 2007. He attempted to launch his own F1 team for the 2010 season but the application was not successful. He's driven for Williams, McLaren and Benetton, but made more of an impact as a good development and test driver than a sparkling racer. He has no championships or wins to his name, but is known for speaking his mind, and as a comentator on his home TV networks in Austria, he'll be good at calling things as he sees them.

Wurz has on occasion been trusted at the wheel of the FIA medical car.

Johnny Herbert

Herbert has driven for quite a few teams during his 12 years in the sport, with the last Jaguar Racing in 2000. He's also been involved with Stewart, Sauber, Benetton, Ligier, Lotus and Tyrrell. Herbert never won the championship but stood on the top step of the podium three times, and picked up 98 points during his F1 career. Since leaving the sport, he has participated in Le Mans and BTCC, and advised Jordan and Midland before they became Spyker.

Damon Hill

Since leaving F1, Hill has kept himself extremely busy heading up the BRDC and managing their exploits at Silverstone and in keeping the British GP alive. The former champion won 22 races and one title in his eight years - driving for Jordan and Williams amongst others. Damon is a media friendly figure, but isn't afraid to share his frustrations, making waves and headlines in equal measures. Hill has been confirmed as a steward for two races.

What do you think of these driver choices? Will they make sensible decisions? Who else should be added to the list, and more importantly, who should not?

Anyone for a Breakaway?

The Formula One Teams' Association has announced that it is setting up a breakaway championship. Eight of the current Formula One teams met up at the Renault factory in Enstone and concluded that enough was enough, it's time to do things their own way.

A statement from FOTA read:

The teams cannot continue to compromise on the fundamental values of the sport and have declined to alter their original conditional entries to the 2010 World Championship. These teams therefore have no alternative other than to commence the preparation for a new Championship which reflects the values of its participants and partners.

Then they really twist the knife on the FIA President Max Mosley, with the rather excellent:

This series will have transparent governance, one set of regulations, encourage more entrants and listen to the wishes of the fans, including offering lower prices for spectators worldwide, partners and other important stakeholders.

Fighting talk indeed.

While there's nothing to say any of the above will come to fruition, is does mean that today's FIA imposed deadline is all but shot to pieces. Evidently current drivers and sponsors will migrate to the new series on mass, and importantly so will "promoters". Which begs the question where does Bernie stand in all of this?

Now the cat is really amongst the pigeons. Finally the sport has taken a significant step forward and suddenly we find ourselves interested in the politics of F1 again. As ever, feel free to discuss events in the comments.

Could This be the End?

Today could be a huge day for Formula One. One of those events that gets recorded in the history books for all time. Equally, it could be a day of few surprises, one that is merely another stage in the political war that has completely engulfed F1 recently.

It is very hard to predict what may happen on this second Friday in June. Supposedly, as avid followers of the sport, you might think we should have some kind of clue, but with so many meetings happening all over the place, and letters flying to and fro you'd be a fool to try and second guess who, if anyone, will win this particular battle.

The last bit of news I heard was that ongoing discussions "weren't entirely negative". Right now, I would beg to differ.

Everything coming out of FOTA or the FIA's mouths for the past few months has been negative, and it is dragging the sport's good name, and almost everyone's spirit and motivation through the mud.

The FIA are due to announce the entry list for next season at some point today, maybe as early as midday. This could be an end of it, but more likely it is just another step along the path to 2010 and beyond. We've already had a couple of predictions in the comments, taking a guess at who will be on the list, and whether it actually means anything in the long run. Feel free to mull over such things, and discuss the outcome when it finally arrives.

F1 on the Cheap

F1 is no stranger to controversy, but whilst many of the sports trials and tribulations have been well publicised during recent weeks, one particular disagreement may have slipped beneath the mainstream press' radars.

It's a subject that affects everybody within the sport and we're surprised it hasn't garnered more attention. Apparently there was a major, if rather unsuccessful, meeting today to sort the entire issue out, and eagle-eyed commentor Lukeh spotted a news piece on the item in question.

The article talks of the FIA's proposed 40 budgie cap for next year's championship and discusses how the ten teams aren't in favour of such a low threshold.

Bernie Ecclestone, F1 boss, told both reporters and every team his stance: "These budgies are ruining the economic state of the sport and we must make a change."

The FIA appear to be ruffling feathers and rattling cages throughout the F1 jungle. Sidepodcast managed to capture Lukeh nibbling on some millet so we asked him for a bird's eye view of the situation:

I'm a little upset to be honest, to stop these teams from going to their full potential because the FIA wants these budgies restricted is very unfair and I can't sing enough praises for what we have right now. The teams have seems so chirpy before this saga, and now with this budgie cap, they're just being stopped from spreading their wings of creativity.

I think it's safe to say we are all hoping for a swift end to the situation, that the teams won't take flight, and that a suitable solution will reflect the wishes of all parties. The teams clearly feel victory can be clawed back even if the FIA have to be hauled before the beak.

Thoughts on the McLaren Verdict

It all happened much quicker than we'd anticipated, but McLaren's hearing has been and gone and the result is in. The FIA have handed out a suspended three-race ban, with the charge being that old favourite bringing the sport into disrepute. The suspended ban essentially means that McLaren are free to go but if there are any more dismeanours in the next 12 months, then it could be brought into force.

As reported earlier in the week, Martin Whitmarsh attended the hearing alone, and having already written a letter of apology to the FIA, he reiterated the sentiments in person. Apparently he was only inside the FIA Headquarters for an hour, before leaving to await the sentence.

This, plus the somewhat lenient sentencing tells us several things.

Firstly, the FIA are pushing for a new, much more open and honest sport. There have been plenty of discussions in our comments over the last few weeks centering around the fact that McLaren are not the only people to have ever lied in F1. Of course this is true, but given the shift in FIA thinking over the past year or so, they had to take Whitmarsh to account for what happened.

With so much internet reporting, there is no room for lying, cheating or generally covering up small problems for the good of the sport. Whatever happens will be found out and the FIA need to be seen to act.

Having said that, they must have been slightly concerned about what punishment to hand out. To ban the team now would cause an outrage, just as the sport is having one of the best season starts they could ask for (in terms of racing action). We all breathed a collective sigh of relief when the diffusers were deemed legal, and really, I think the same can be said for this result. Even though McLaren did wrong, it's hard to want the championship battle to be interrupted in anyway.

One of the biggest "storylines" of this season is whether McLaren can return to form and allow Hamilton back up the order to defend his championship. To mess with that now could prove disastrous. In the same way to have fiddled with the Alonso v. Hamilton championship battle in '07 would have brought F1 to it's knees.

On the other hand (how many hands do you have?), it can also be said that with Ron Dennis' convenient step aside, the FIA no longer have their arch enemy to rally against. The McLaren team have lost a key member of staff, some credibility within the paddock, and pretty much all contact with Ron Dennis on day to day matters. I'm not sure the governing body could have had a better result if they tried.

It may have been brave for Whitmarsh to face the judge and jury by himself, but I'm pretty sure all involved knew that the battle had already been won.

FOTA Submit Future Proposals

At a crowded press conference in Geneva today, FOTA presented their idea of the future for F1. There was a raft of possibilities, that will now go to the WMSC to be agreed on, or not as the case may be. Whilst there was nothing extraordinary, there were a couple of surprises.

Wind Tunnel

When Frank Williams first mentioned he was unhappy with some of the FOTA decisions regarding wind tunnel useage, we thought this was the first crack in what was going to be an inevitable break up of the teams. They just aren't capable of all agreeing on things. Except, they are. The association have obviously heard what Frank was saying, and paid attention. They've suggested a limit on wind tunnel and CFD testing, but to make it fair for those who have already invested, you can use either, as long as you don't exceed the maximum. This seems to be an acceptable compromise, but are the two methods comparable?

Points

Completely ignoring Bernie's medal idea, FOTA have proposed the points for the top three finishers is increased, to try and encourage overtaking. From 10-8-6, they suggest it be moved up to 12-9-7, with the rest working from 5 backwards as usual. Is this really enough to get a driver challenging for position? Is the points system really the place to make this happen? Either way, we should really just be grateful that they are numbers and not medals.

One of the most surprising ideas to come from the announcement is the idea of offering points for the fastest pit stop. A constructors point could be on offer for the team with the slickest mechanics. I can understand the idea behind this, but it seems like a bizarre offering. Considering the ban on refuelling seems to be discouraging pit stops, this would make them an integral part of the race weekend.

Accessibility

The teams are starting to realise that we want to know more about what is happening during the race, and get better access to the teams throughout the weekend. For a start, they suggest presenting their race fuel loads, tyre choices and pit stop data to the public as the race is going on. FOTA also want to engage with fans more, referencing tennis and cricket as good examples of informative coverage. They also propose mandatory driver autograph sessions, and a team spokesperson available for the media to contact during a race. We saw this at a couple of races last year, where the TV/radio stations had access to someone on the pit wall. It was definitely an addition to be encouraged.

Of course, these are simply proposals at the moment, and the full statement is available to read here. The FIA have final say on all the above, so who knows what will become fact. However, presenting a commitment to make the sport better for the fans and encourage overtaking, whilst still remaining unanimous and in agreement is a step in the right direction for FOTA.

How to Write Letters and Influence People

Max has put pen to paper once again, and started the New Year with a missive sent to the President of the FOTA, Luca di Montezemolo, copying in all team principals. The letter is a simple update on the cost cutting process, but contains a lot of insight.

Mosley starts by listing some general points, encouraging everyone to remember that Formula One could not continue as it was. He also makes a point of saying that "having recently invested in an expensive facility is not an argument for retaining it." This seems like a very odd start to a letter, and I'm curious if that's aimed at anyone in particular?

He moves on to some specific rulings, concentrating on the 2010 season when the really big changes are going to happen. Here's a quick rundown:

• No major changes on the engine front, rev limited and frozen until 2013.
• Testing restricted to 15,000km including Fridays.
• Standard gearbox, and a standard (or frozen) chassis aside from a list of parts that may be developed.
• KERS remains optional, but Max lists out some very specific development ideas the FIA have got. Suddenly batteries aren't feasible in Formula 1 and they'd prefer teams to make KERS devices that will be road relevant.
• The FIA are very keen on the idea of a budget caps, and see it as a fair way to limit costs. They want teams to discuss how it could work.

Here is the most important excerpt though:

The main complaint from race fans is the lack of overtaking and wheel-to-wheel racing...

We intend to seek FOTA’s help to investigate the use of moveable aerodynamic devices. If sufficiently radical, these could give a car following another car a performance advantage by virtue of being behind.

Firstly, Max has started listening to the fans complaints? Surely this can't be right. Secondly, moveable devices could now be allowed! We were already aware of the prospect of a fiddly front wing supposedly helping overtaking for next year, but this seems like a lot more could be on the cards. Presumably it would all be discussed, agreed upon, limited to certain areas of the car, and certain movements. Nevertheless, this seems to go against everything the FIA have been regulating for the last few years. Expect Ferrari to have an advantage in this from the off.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the letter, the bits I've picked out or anything I may have missed. The teams are meeting in London today, what will they make of the above, and just exactly where is Formula 1 headed for the future?

Sir Jackie Slams Mosley, Ecclestone

Jackie Stewart gave Formula One's top men both barrels in an interview with The Times today, calling for both Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone to step down.

The former World Champion doesn't hold back in his condemnation, suggesting Bernie is so focused on complete control that there's no way for a succession plan to be even considered let alone executed, and that Ecclestone is, well... getting old.

Stewart continues his criticism suggesting Bernie and Max are so close as to be "Siamese twins" and offers the damning verdict that:

They haven't looked after the house properly and the foundations are built on just this two-man working relationship.

This has evoked concern and apprehension on the part of those involved in the sport. When Max Mosley had the scandal erupt around him, how many team principals or owners spoke out?

None.

Furthermore Jackie fears that if the FIA could find an unsavoury past history to use against him, they would do. Nothing, it seems is off limits in this interview, and other highlights include:

• Revenue distribution comes under the spotlight, and is described as "untenable".
• The lack of a North American F1 race in 2009, is "ridiculous".
• While Max should "remove himself from the FIA completely and from motorsport and the motor industry".

This is gripping stuff. Everything spills out onto the page like someone popped the champagne cork, then couldn't stop the words from flowing. Finally somebody with a voice has spoken out and the criticism couldn't come from a more experienced, intelligent and respected man than Sir Jackie Stewart.

As you can imagine, I highly recommend you read the full text of the interview and absorb every single word - things like this don't come along that often. I think I may even have to go and buy a paper copy for posterity too.

One can only imagine the look on Bernie and Max's faces.

Fireworks, but No Racing in Canada

Not for the first time, the F1 world is facing a problem with transparency. Yesterday a meeting of the World Motor Sport Council was held in Paris and those present agreed on a number of points that were scheduled to be discussed. None of this came as a huge surprise, but what has knocked the F1 world sideways is an update to the 2009 calendar that casually drops the Canadian Grand Prix.

Whilst there are no doubt reasons for the FIA dropping the race, the problem is no-one has any information as to what they might be. A quick scan of the official press release that followed the meeting actually makes no mention, it only provides a revised 2009 calendar without giving reason for the omission of a significant part of its timetable.

The subsequent reaction around the web has been entirely predictable given that one of the best races on the calendar has suddenly vanished, and now the sport has no presence in North America. As a result of the lack of information, every man has his dog have been blamed, most of them probably unfairly, but when there's nothing to work with what else can people do?

It's almost as if the FIA is deliberately trying to court controversy, as if they revel in lighting the blue touch paper and watching the resulting fireworks.

Regardless, it looks as though the race is indeed history as far as 2009 is concerned. The website Grandprix.com suggests that the issue might be related to non-payment of fees. While the organisers of the race issued the following statement:

Canada have learned via the media of the omission of the Grand Prix of Canada from the F1 Championship 2009 calendar. Therefore, the organization will issue no comment until having spoken to Formula One Management (FOM) and the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA).

Make of that what you will, and no doubt the facts will become clearer once journalists have had chance to do some digging on their arrival in Fuji.

The race may well return in 2010, it took a hiatus for a year in '87 and still made it back, but in the meantime the dedicated and put-upon fans across the Atlantic are without a race and the Formula 1 World Championship is looking about as International as the World Series.

They Could be Wrong, They Could be Right

Christine and I have been picking through the bones of today's International Court of Appeal rejection, and the main point we keep coming back to is the involvement of Tony Scott-Andrews.

Them's the Rules

Just to reiterate, prior to the hearing it became apparent to the FIA that McLaren were going to rely on the admission of a previous appeal hearing from October 2007 as part of the basis for their defence. To counter this, the FIA informed McLaren that there was a mistake made by the stewards during that particular hearing and in fact the defendant, one Vitantonio Liuzzi, was assigned a 25 second time penalty in Fuji, but he actually should have been given a post-race drive-through penalty (which equates to 25 seconds and which cannot be appealed).

This in and of itself, seems perfectly legitimate. Article 16.3 of the sporting regulations states that in the case of Tonio's infraction, one of three penalties can be meted out. A drive through penalty, a ten second penalty or a 10 place grid drop next time around. Additionally article 152 states that pit lane drive-throughs are not susceptible to appeal.

A Moment of Madness

So all is well and good. The stewards messed up in Fuji and then the ICA didn't question it during appeal, but as it was, the case was lost and the results stood as they were. Questions should be asked how all this managed to occur of course, but that's not the argument today. The rules clearly state a mistake was made and the FIA fessed up, presumably with the intention of saving themselves much embarrassment in Paris.

McLaren were duly informed, although for some odd reason Charlie Whiting felt the need to back up the facts by adding that chief race steward of the time, Tony Scott-Andrews had also told him there had been an error. Quite why this was necessary I can't fathom, but that's nothing compared to what McLaren's lawyers did next, which was to personally seek out and question Scott-Andrews themselves.

Allegedly, the response said lawyers received was exactly what they wanted to hear, namely that Scott-Andrews thought the FIA's clarification to McLaren was bunkum. This evidence was raised during on Monday afternoon, presumably to the chagrin of the FIA.

Pick a Question, Any Question

All this leaves many unanswered questions.

Why were the FIA not content to simply quote their own rules and be done with it? Why didn't McLaren check the rules themselves? Why were they so suspicious of Charlie's references that they had to seek out the source themselves (Whiting is usually considered a trustworthy person, isn't he)?

The final, yet most important question, is what might the repercussions of such a move be? Because I'm reasonably confident the FIA won't take to kindly too having such damning evidence thrown in their faces while the world's media watched on.

Anyone else think that there could be yet more trouble ahead?